View Full Version : How many flights a year would it take
to create the same footprint as someone with an SUV?
Sometimes I see people who do a lot to live conservatively for the environment. Then they go to Italy or Hawaii, and I think they must have blown any environmental credit they created that year.
How bad are long distance flights? Any equivalents?
I think this is an elephant in the room type of thing, and it seems so obvious to me.
I've actually been curious about the same thing. I have a few friends who are very concious of their carbon footprint, but take long international flights for vacation once or more per year. So I spent a few minutes googling the topic. I don't know if there is a perfect answer. For example, one might say, well the plane was flying there anyway and I was just filling a seat. It also seems to matter whether there is only one person in the car or if you are carpooling, if you are figuring CO2 emisions per person. After reading about five or six of the articles and not especially making a big project out of it, my take is that the CO2 productions per person for flying are probably in the same ballpark for driving the same distance.
I ran across this one quote which seemed to sort of answer the question. "On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month." Maybe someone will be more ambitious than I or have more knowledge and come up with a better answer.
This is kind of a sidebar: but, I saw a show on PBS awhile back (can't remember the name but something about global warming) that said durning the airline flight shutdowns the occured for several days durning 9-11, the lower atmospheric temps rose dramaticly just within a day. This was because all the contrail vapor output from all those planes in flight actually create a kind of sunblock (like a thin cloud cover), preventing alot of the suns rays from reaching earth. During the shutdown those temps continued to rise and once flying resumed at pre-9-11 levels, they dropped. I'll try to find a link to the show. Didn't seem to have a political agenda attached to it - it was just some scientists who had been doing multi-year atmospheric testing who noticed this by accident.
OK, it was a NOVA show called "The Contrail Effect". You can goggle it. here's an exert from ther article about the show:
"Another study that took advantage of the grounding gave striking evidence of what contrails can do. David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis's team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.
These results suggest that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat). That is, they can be both cooling and warming clouds. But what is the net effect? Do they cool more than they warm, or vice versa? "Well, the assumption is a net warming," Travis says, "but there is a lot of argument still going on about how much of a warming effect they produce."
interesting ideas. I mean you just can't get up and fly around the world and say you are conserving for the environment. It doesn't make sense, but efforts are all about choice. If you choose to fly around, great, but you can't come down on other people for their choices then.
I found this
CO2 emissions
By plane return to Geneva 170kg CO2 in tonnes 10 Average amount of CO2 generated per person per year in the UK 4.76 Heathrow-Sydney return, per passenger 0.37 Heathrow-Malaga return, per passenger (Source: climatecare.org)
ApatheticNoMore
5-20-11, 3:13pm
I've always figured an international flight probably burns as much as an SUV a year (or at least the difference between an SUV and I don't know .. a Prius). Maybe a domestic flight even burns that (I'm not sure).
But people have to fly to see relatives ... you know living so far away from relatives and flying to see them is going to be in no way, shape or form sustainable or probably even maintainable in the not so distant future. Although I do understand those who want a certain distance, should be enough so that relatives don't show up on your door unexpected or too regularly in that case but not enough so that you have to get on a plane :laff: Don't people like Monbiot argue we could have a modern world, much as is as it is now, without global warming but there is no way to keep things like flying (of course he's relying on nuclear power and so on I guess, oh well not saying I endorse that, those plants are going to radiate us all after a big earthquake someday, but just thinking flying has to be a major carbon user).
It's still good they do what they can to conserve in other ways (in a could be worse kind of way :)). I mean the problem is huge and intractable, we're going to burn every gallon of oil we can extract out of the earth until we can't I guess :(
One of the articles I ran across suggested that a person who travels and wants to be carbon neutral could buy carbon credits to offet their CO2 production. There appearently are companies who sell carbon offsets to individuals and companies and use the money to support wind or solar energy, tree planting and reforestation, etc. Seems like some utility companies sell carbon credits and also some non-profits. I guess this hasn't caught on well enough to be common, but it's an interesting approach. It was a new one on me.
I think this is an elephant in the room type of thing, and it seems so obvious to me.
Me, too.
The Union of Concerned Scientists put together the Green Travel Report. (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/greentravel/getting-there-greener.html) that compares the different modes of travel. I am going on a 500 mile trip for work next Feb and was planning to drive, but now I think I might fly.
Unless, maybe I drive real sloooooowwwwwwly.
Top Tip #1: This is a Big Problem, So Think a Little Smaller and Straighter
"The Elsens," our representative family from the suburbs of Chicago, have been trying to minimize the carbon footprint from their daily commute. But when they cash in their frequent flyer miles for a trip to Disney World, they discovered that the trip would produce more global warming pollution than a whole year of commuting. Our report recommends avoiding first class and economy plus--which can up-to-double the carbon footprint of flying--and indirect routes, to keep air travel carbon to a minimum.
I found this in the report quoted above.
Me, too.
The Union of Concerned Scientists put together the Green Travel Report. (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/cleaner_cars_pickups_and_suvs/greentravel/getting-there-greener.html) that compares the different modes of travel. I am going on a 500 mile trip for work next Feb and was planning to drive, but now I think I might fly.
Unless, maybe I drive real sloooooowwwwwwly.
interesting ideas. I mean you just can't get up and fly around the world and say you are conserving for the environment. It doesn't make sense, but efforts are all about choice. If you choose to fly around, great, but you can't come down on other people for their choices then.
I agree - flying probably does alot more damage than good for the envirnment. I was just sharing an interesting sidebar to this thread, not making a judgement on the choices people make.
One of the articles I ran across suggested that a person who travels and wants to be carbon neutral could buy carbon credits to offet their CO2 production. There appearently are companies who sell carbon offsets to individuals and companies and use the money to support wind or solar energy, tree planting and reforestation, etc. ...
This concept always makes me laugh at the sheer absurdity of it. Talk about hutzpah. The sacrifices needed to save the earth are only for the peons, not for me 'cause I'm able to buy my way out of it.
W.T.F.
loosechickens
5-21-11, 3:24pm
That's how I kind of look at it, too, Iris Lily.....kind of like the rich buying indulgences back in the Middle Ages, but I guess it's at least a bit better than them creating all the carbon and NOT at least paying something for somebody to plant trees, develop solar energy, etc.
Of course, whether it's been buying one's way into heaven, paying someone to join the military in place of your own kids, or buying carbon credits, it's the kind of thing that allows people with the means to do so, to do to eliminate any inconveniences in life that they can, just as they have done through history. So as long as they are going to do it anyway (create all the carbon stuff) good at least that some neutrality might be produced.
It IS really chutzpah, though, for sure.....we agree.
Yeah, to me it's sort of like sinning now knowing you can confess and be forgiven later. Still, I have friends with money who travel a lot and would rather they pay a little penance than nothing at all.
Truth be told, I really can't afford to travel traditionally, where you fly somewhere, rent a car and stay in motels. So I consider this sort of travel somewhat of a rich indulgence regardless of the carbon credits a person might buy.
kally - if you google "carbon footprint calculator" there are a couple of different links to calculators that you can help you answer your question.
Due to the fact that I was an expat for 7 years and will be again soon has greatly impacted our carbon footprint. While we use eco-bags, walk/use public transportation (we haven't owned a car for almost a year now), recycle, live in a smaller space and all the other little things to reduce our carbon footprint, simply getting on a flight does push our household much closer to the 'average' American sized footprint :(
That does not mean we will stop our efforts because we will never 'win' the game. My husband is an engineer in energy management and creates large scale energy reduction projects. A win for us in the small scale and a big win for many in the big picture.
I learned a LOT about living a more ecologically friendly lifestyle when living overseas and have easily translated those to make them also work here in the US. My friends here are now seeing how it is possible to make these also work in their life w/out interruption. How much further behind in the game would we be if I had not boarded that plane and learned these things?
There is no single solution to reduce our carbon footprints...but we do need to take a few extra steps out of our comfort zones to make it happen for the long term.
I am a very frequent flyer due to working in a separate state to DH. We're trying to get back under the same roof, but it's not something that we can do overnight: job hunting takes time. I do buy carbon credits, not because I think it absolves me from any ecological responsibility, but because I'd rather do something small to offset the carbon dioxide I'm creating instead of just ignoring it altogether. My aging parents also live in the UK, so yearly international flights add to my carbon footprint.
OTOH, I'm vegan and have no kids, and my daily commute is short (it would be walkable if there were actually sidewalks here). In acutely aware of my own inability to live up to my own standards, but I do what I can. (I'm currently sweltering in 90F heat sans AC to save money and reduce that particular bit of my carbon footprint).
I don't have a problem with the idea of carbon credits. But then, I'm pragmatic about these things and as long as they really do reduce the amount of CO2 they should be utilized as part of a multi-pronged strategy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.